Scientific American threatens AiG : Demands immediate removal of Web rebuttal

AIG ^ | 2002/07/11 | AIG

[ZGuy]

The prominent magazine Scientific American thought it had finally discredited its nemesis—creationism—with a feature article listing ‘15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense’ (July 2002). Supposedly these were the fifteen best arguments that evolutionists could use to discredit the Bible’s account of Creation. (National Geographic TV also devoted a lengthy report to the article.)

Within 72 hours, Dr Jonathan Sarfati—a resident scientist at Answers in Genesis–Australia—had written a comprehensive, point-by-point critique of the magazine article and posted it on this Web site.

So Scientific American thought it would try to silence AiG with the threat of a lawsuit.

In an e-mail to Dr Sarfati, Scientific American accused him and AiG of infringing their copyright by reproducing the text of their article and an illustration. They said they were prepared to ‘settle the matter amicably’ provided that AiG immediately remove Dr Sarfati’s article from its Web site.

AiG’s international copyright attorney, however, informed Scientific American that their accusations are groundless and that AiG would not be removing the article. Dr Sarfati’s article had used an illustration of a bacterial flagellum, but it was drawn by an AiG artist years ago. AiG had also used the text of SA’s article, but in a way that is permissible under ‘fair use’ of copyrighted materials for public commentary. (AiG presented the text of the SA article, with Dr Sarfati’s comments interspersed in a different color, to avoid any accusations of misquoting or misrepresenting the author.)

Why the heavy-handed tactics? If AiG’s responses were not valid, why would Scientific American even care whether they remained in the public arena? One can only presume that Scientific American (and National Geographic) had the ‘wind taken out of their sails.’ Dr Sarfati convincingly showed that they offered nothing new to the debate and they displayed a glaring ignorance of creationist arguments. Their legal maneuver appears to be an act of desperation. (AiG is still awaiting SA’s response to the decision not to pull the Web rebuttal.)

[Smokin' Joe]

I believe the "theories" of gravity and thermodynamics were given "Law" status years ago. To wit: that through countless repeatable experiments and innumerable acts of independant verification these "theories" were found to be universally accepted as fact.

Evolution has not passed such a test, nor could it. There is also the element of circular reasoning in paleontology in which rock is dated by the fossils it contains, a system which ensures an "orderly" progression of forms from natural disorder.

A great deal of the history contained in the Bible has been archaeologically verified, at least insofar as finding the remains and records of the civilizations described there. I do not see any claim in my King James' Version to be a text of science.

In the end, you choose what to believe, but belief is the essence of embracing one system or the other.

[Elsie]

So all translated texts are biased? And only some are biased your way?

---

I'd have to say first that there are degrees of bias.

As an obvious example, if you that the text the Jehovah Witnesses use, you don't have to be much of a scholar at all to see that their BELIEFS influenced some of the wording they use. I know of NO ONE outside their organization that agrees with them on some of their 'interpretations' of how verses are translated.

One can look in any dictionary and find words that have multiple usages and definations; some very common, others quite rare. You could, quite 'honestly' claim that any of them could be used, but common sense would tell you that the most frequent usage is 'probably' the most correct (but not necessarily so).

---

"Man, that is one bad car!"

(does the writer intend to say that the function of the automobile is way below standard or that is a really well maintained and desirable vehicle?)

[and THAT isn't even TRANSLATED!]

---

Due to the syntax difference of the old languages compared to our modern English, a word-to-word exact translation would be almost unreadable, but it would be exact. We say, "the red car" which in another language would be "the car, red". So translators that are trying to be 'exact' still have to rearrange the words to made them acceptable to our ears, as well as our minds.

Other translators try to pry out the 'meaning' of the ancient text and then rewrite the 'idea' down in modern phasing, not worrying about exact words but trying for exact ideas and thoughts.

---

Remember what I said earlier about each of us thinking we are right - this comes into play in translating. There may be 2, 3 or more ways to remove the epidermis from a feline, and the same applies in translating. Why not pick the one that makes your point of view easier to understand? or less confusing?

---

We are blessed (or cursed, some may say) by an OVERWHELMING number of differing translations and paraphrases in the English language of the Bible. If you really want to get down and do an in depth study, the is plenty of material. Even the things that Aric2000 mentions are of some value as well.

---

You may be aware of the uproar that has been caused by the NIV translators coming out with a new version that is more 'gender neutral' I think it is termed. Well, many people are unaware that a lot of places in the original text had these non-specific descriptors - gender nuetral - could have been either male or female. Well, we already HAVE a long cultural bias from the centuries that the KJV was basically the only game in town, and, back in the time that IT was creaated (1611) the society was VERY male dominated, so in interpreting these words, the guys used male terms because that was how society was structured. We 'know' that our FATHER and HE and HIS are 'suppossed' to be there, not this namby-pamby, womens lib, new age mumbo-jumbo. But, alas, in many spots, it is not. We just have centuries of 'common usage' that we have to unlearn; and THAT is the hard part.

[Elsie]

http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/bibles/translations/index.php

[Elsie]

I thought the original (or at least the Old Testament) was in Hebrew, then translated into Greek and then into English, that's what I meant by twice removed.

---

If you remember from the OT, the JEWS had been captured by the Babylonians and after being allowed to return to Israel, not all of them did. They had been scattered thruout the MiddleEast and had picked up the local languages of whatever country they were located. As Greece had been the ruler of much of the world before the Romans appeared on the scene (Daniel's interpretation of Nebbuchnezzar's dream) there was a version, of the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) in Greek called the Septugint (sp?). This was in common usage in the days of Christ and in reading the NT about the travels of Paul, you can see that what ever city he is in, he tries to go to the SYNAGOG in that city and proclaim the GOSPEL to the existing JEWS there. He used the OT to show many that Jesus, was, indeed, the Person who fit the prophecies and rose from the dead. (Usually the Jewish leaders casued trouble for Paul, but there were many who DID believe and many Gentiles (non-Jews) as well.

---

No, we do NOT use the Greek translation of the OT for our modern one, but from many of the still existing old Hebrew text scrolls that were in the old monestaries.

We do, however, use Greek NT texts, because THAT is the ORIGINAL source language.

[Dimensio]

I believe the "theories" of gravity and thermodynamics were given "Law" status years ago. To wit: that through countless repeatable experiments and innumerable acts of independant verification these "theories" were found to be universally accepted as fact.

No, the laws are mathematical formula that are used to describe the mechanics of the theory. They are not the same thing.

[Elsie]

This is a laundry list that does nothing whatsoever to address my point, but if this satisfies your need for refutation, that's what counts, I suppose.

I don't understand: what was I refuting?

My point was that EVERYONE has a point of veiw and that anything you get from them will probably be slanted in that direction.

We are probably both conservative in our political thinking: we don't need no steenking leebral to tell us what the Constitution means!

---

But what if it was written in Swahili???? THEN our choice of 'interpreter' is crucial!

Think Supreme Court...........

[Drumbo]

"See my above post, and did god tell you this himself?"

To what are you referring? That God is constant and unchanging, while science is a roller coaster ride of changing "facts"? No, God did not have to tell me something so easily observable.

Your response was very weak and hardly worth my time to respond, and I know you would rather I didn't. You bring up the scrolls of Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea, the gnostic gospels, the conversion of Constantine, the origins of Easter, the origins of Christmas, the Essenes, Simon Bar Koziba and I answered you; challenged you and all you can say is see my above post? Your above post says: "There are fossils that show that we evolved from another species." That's a lie, PPOR. What species? What fossil? There is no such fossil showing anything of the sort and intellegent people know it.

I was willing to address each and every red herring you produced as well as suffer your insults. I took up your gauntlet, item by item, and you ran away.

You said; "How about the crucifiction . . . they added him rising from the dead of course". Was this from the same source you derive your knowledge of fossils from?

I'm sure the folks debating the topic on both sides find you inutile and boorish.

[Aric2000]

Poor Drumbo,

I will not attack your faith anymore, it seems I have you a bit on edge.

Science looks at natural occurances that can be proven and builds upon it. NO faith is necessary, just the facts are taken into consideration. You on the other hand have a book, which you obviously have taken on faith, without any study or scrutiny whatsoever and have chosen it to lead your life by. That's fine, you believe I am wrong, I on the other hand know that I am right. Pretty simple to me.

Study the history of your holy book and come and talk to me then. You obviously do NOT know what I am talking about, because you repeated my questions back at me. LOOK at the history, not at the book itself. I even studied the history, what there was of it, of the book of Mormon, laughable to say the least, but I studied it, what about scientology, most people don't know that L Ron Hubbard started that religion on a bet. Sounds like a good reason to me, again, laughable.

I will bet on science EVERY time, it comes up with an answer, it does not say, I believe this, it says, it looks like these facts fit into this theory, and this fact seems to fit into it as well, hmmm, facts seem to fit, we'll keep this until more facts come along to disprove it.

You have no facts to disprove evolution, you have faith in something that was written thousands of years ago, and then tossed together by man less then 1600 years ago, and they called it holy. Oh yeah, sounds like it's credible to me.

Thanks for playing though, come back when you have a clue.

I don't mind if you want to believe the bible, I have no trouble with it at all, my trouble is when you try to disprove scientific facts and theories with myth and superstition. Religion and science cannot and do not mix. it does not mean that a scientist cannot be religious, it just means that he has to leave it at home, or perhaps be OPEN minded enough to look at things in a different light, unlike you of course who wishes to force your religious beliefs down my throat. Religion belongs in Philosophy class, science belongs in a science class. Evolution and ID has no place in a science class, just as science does not have a place in a philosophy class. Science is science, religion is religion, they do not mix when it comes to facts. Because religion is not based on facts, it is based on faith, keep your faith in your religion, I will base my facts on science.

[Drumbo]

I cannot prove a negative, nor can you. Therefore, you have no facts to disprove God either. You cannot even back up any of your attacks or ignorant statements about Him. Your faith in science does not prove your questionable theories, and you have cited nothing to back up your fossil fantasies. You admitted that your "facts" change at will, you ignored coherient questions about your red herrings and you responded with circular reasoning and ad homonyms. You may delude yourself and that you have won a great victory for father Darwin in the name of science, but in reality you not only loose but you are an embarrassment to the evolutionist camp which abandoned you some time ago.

[Aric2000]

Pardon me? I have been abandoned, actually I am just the only person who is patient enough to continue to debate you goofballs.

You say that science fact is just so much fantasy, well sorry folks, you have yet to state any FACTS that disprove evolution. Your creationism Myth is exactly that, a myth and I have stated facts about that, and you wish to ignore those as well.

You claim to have facts that disprove evolution, well I have TRUE facts that disprove your SOURCE for creationism.

Creationism is a myth, evolution is a fact of life.

Sorry, you are not even close to disproving evolution, thanks for playing.

[gore3000]

There is NO proof that disproves evolution, you may like to think so,

Of course there is and I gave you two - platypus and euglena. But there are many more proofs against evolution:
1. Evolutionists cannot show a single species that has been transformed into another species.
2. Evolutionists cannot show a single mutation which has been beneficial to the organism.
3. Evolutionists cannot show how a single new gene can be created.
4. Evolutionists cannot show how you can change the developmental program of an organism by random means.
5. Evolutionists cannot show how the bat developed a sonar system better than what our armed forces have through gradual evolution.

There are many more questions that cannot be answered by evolutionists, but those will keep evolutionists busy for quite a while as it is.

There is another problem with evolution, and while they say the theory of evolution does not encompass abiogenesis, it certainly depends on it and here's why: if life was created by God as the complete impossibility of abiogenesis certainly implies, then there is no reason to assume that God has not had a hand in the creation of species.

As to paleontological proofs of evolution, they do not prove anything except the dishonesty of the whole profession. The numerous fakes which were perpetrated by paleontologists because they needed a 'link' show that. The many absolutely outrageous claims by paleontologists such as that a pair of teeth 10,000 miles away prove the descent of a toothless animal (the platypus), that a pair of ankle bones and a jaw found a thousand miles away a decade before constitute proof of the first primate, that another jaw and a pasted up partial skull is proof of the first mammal, that Lucy, whose face was more plaster than bone, was the first human, etc., etc., etc.

You poor delusional human being, what is wrong with being a cousin of the Chimpanzee? we share 98% of our Genome with them, 98% of our DNA matches, and you think that we are NOT related?

This is another of the false statements made by evolution. Similarities between species are not proof of evolution. No intelligent being would reinvent the wheel every time he needs one. The similarities are just as well proof of intelligent design. And BTW - DNA analysis has shown that man in no way descended from any kind of apes.

[balrog666]

... but in reality you not only loose but you are an embarrassment to the evolutionist camp which abandoned you some time ago.

Sometimes you just have to take a break. I suspect most of the interested parties are still here and just reading or will catch up later. Not everybody has to respond to every post, especially the goofball posts.

By the way, look up the words "loose" and "lose" sometime.

[Aric2000]

ROFLMAO!!!! You are delusional, well, I guess the blue goes on my ignore as well.

Sense cannot be spoken with you, facts are things to be ignored, and the bible is the be all end all of your existence, to be taken literally and no way else.

Have fun with your fanatacism, because facts are facts, and myths are myths. Enjoy your myths, because I sure as heck aren't going to read your nonsense anymore.

[JavaTheHutt]

Is there anything about the UNPROVEABLE theory of gravity that bothers you? What about the UNPROVEABLE theories regarding thermodynamics? Theories in science are never proven. To state as much shows ignorance of the scientific method.

Proof positive that education beyond the third grade is important.

The law of gravity has been proven. It is able to be recreated, observed, measured, tested. Gravity, it's not just a theory, it's the law. Same with thermodynamics.

I don't claim to be an expert in this argument, but I do believe that the scientific arguments presented by evolutionists are more on the level of hypothesis than they are theory.

Just out of curiosity, can you name one instance where science has been able to unequivically prove the creation events documented in the bible to be incorrect?

[Smokin' Joe]

Odd, then, that none of my professors referred to either gravity or thermodynamics without referring to the 'Laws' thereof--professors who would speak of the theory of relativity and a unified field theory.

These were PhD's in chemistry and physics who were very concious of the difference.

In the meantime, to pick one salient example, I am supposed to believe all vertebrates are descended from Amphioxus, who in turn is the descendant of some hypothetical neotenic tunicate larva....

Oh well, " For now we see as through a glass darkly, but then face to face."

[Dimensio]

Gravity, it's not just a theory, it's the law

There are "laws" of gravity that have a mathematical explanation of the understood mechanics. It is still possible that the understood mechanics only apply under specific circumstances (circumstances which have always been present when the theory was applied and results were found) and if it were found that there were circumstances under which the existing theory did not apply then gravitational theory would be falsified.

Theories are never proven. That is within the restrictions of a theory. A theory must always have a falsification criteria, and "proving" a theory implies that there are no means by which it could be falsified.

[f.Christian]

To: Right Wing Professor


My mistake. In linking to the words of John Paul, I implicitly assumed that those reading them would possess some level of comprehension. It was a speech by a sophisticated metaphysician to an audience of scientists. Do you really think you should be responding to it without being sure you understand it?

In the preceding text, the Pontiff referred to a multiplicity of theories of evolution. In the section you quote, he discusses that subset of such theories which "regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter".

Got it now, or would you prefer a translation into monosyllables?


209 posted on 7/11/02 2:02 PM Pacific by Right Wing Professor





5. The magisterium of the Church takes a direct interest in the question of evolution, because it touches on the conception of man, whom Revelation tells us is created in the image and likeness of God. The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has given us a magnificent exposition of this doctrine, which is one of the essential elements of Christian thought. The Council recalled that "man is the only creature on earth that God wanted for its own sake." In other words, the human person cannot be subordinated as a means to an end, or as an instrument of either the species or the society; he has a value of his own. He is a person. By this intelligence and his will, he is capable of entering into relationship, of communion, of solidarity, of the gift of himself to others like himself. St. Thomas observed that man's resemblance to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, because his relationship with the object of his knowledge is like God's relationship with his creation. (Summa Theologica I-II, q 3, a 5, ad 1) But even beyond that, man is called to enter into a loving relationship with God himself, a relationship which will find its full expression at the end of time, in eternity. Within the mystery of the risen Christ the full grandeur of this vocation is revealed to us. (Gaudium et Spes, 22) It is by virtue of his eternal soul that the whole person, including his body, possesses such great dignity. Pius XII underlined the essential point: if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides non retimere iubet"). (Humani Generis)

As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person.



487 posted on 7/12/02 10:31 AM Pacific by f.Christian

[f.Christian]

Rennie’s introductory comments
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, …

This is true. Darwin’s main opposition came from the scientists (see Holy War? Who really opposed Darwin?) and much of his support came from compromising clergymen such as Rev. Charles Kingsley, who applied it to humans to assert that the African-Americans and Australian Aborigines had not evolved enough to understand the Gospel (see Darwin’s quisling).

… but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution’s truth beyond reasonable doubt.

This is a debate tactic known as ‘elephant hurling’. This is where the critic throws summary arguments about complex issues to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true, and failing to consider opposing data, usually because they have uncritically accepted the arguments from their own side. But we should challenge elephant-hurlers to offer specifics and challenge the underlying assumptions.

Today that battle has been won everywhere—except in the public imagination.

To be honest, I think Rennie underestimates the hold of evolution on the ‘public imagination’. While many Americans say they believe in creation and reject evolution, sadly many seem to be evolutionized in their thinking. This is shown by the widespread idea that their personal faith should not influence their public life. It’s unfortunate to hear professing Christians who say that they won’t let their faith influence their public policy, e.g. ‘I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I won’t enforce my faith on the pregnant woman who must be given the right to choose’, although the unborn baby has no ‘choice’. However, atheists are very happy to let their own faith influence their public policy and enforce their views on people—we rarely hear: ‘I’m personally in favor of abortion, but I won’t enforce my view on the innocent unborn baby’. For a refutation of the related fallacy that ‘you cannot/should not legislate morality’, see Dispelling false notions of the First Amendment: The Falsity, Futility, Folly Of Separating Morality From Law. See also The Separation of Church and Faith and Stephen Jay Gould and NOMA.

That is why AiG’s primary focus is not on refuting evolution per se, but rather building a consistent Biblical Christian world view. Refuting evolution (and millions of years) is a corollary. See It’s intelligent, but is that good enough?

Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as ‘intelligent design’ to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms.

Perhaps the USA is ‘the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known’ precisely because it has been the most Bible-based society the world has ever known! And that includes belief in the Biblical account of Creation, the Fall and the Flood. See The Creationist Basis for Modern Science.

Note, AiG is not a lobby group, and we oppose legislation for compulsion of creation teaching. For one thing, why would we want an atheist to be forced to teach creation and, thus, give a distorted view? But we would like legal protection for teachers who present scientific arguments against the sacred cow of evolution—see Chemistry teacher resigns amid persecution.

As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a ‘wedge’ for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.

By this ‘reasoning’, he would have to blast Rufus Porter for founding Scientific American for a similar purpose!

Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.

Perhaps the ‘well-informed’ find the creationist arguments convincing because they recognize the validity of them? And real scientists, whom Rennie would call ‘well-informed’, actually have no use for evolution in their work! See How important is evolution to science, really?

To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common ‘scientific’ arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.

Cool! We’d love Bible-believing Christians to be confronted with the weak arguments from Rennie’s article—demonstrating the fallacies will boost their confidence in witnessing! And it could help some non-Christians to see the fallacy of materialist thinking—especially as these arguments from the editor of a major science magazine are presumably the best they’ve got.

[f.Christian]

Cool! We’d love Bible-believing Christians to be confronted with the weak arguments from Rennie’s article—demonstrating the fallacies will boost their confidence in witnessing! And it could help some non-Christians to see the... fallacy of materialist thinking--—especially as these arguments from the editor of a major science magazine are presumably the best they’ve got.

[f.Christian]

Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
AiG has also advised against using this, in this section of Arguments we think creationists should NOT use, because a ‘theory’ in science means something with a reasonable amount of support, and gives evolution more credence than it deserves.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists’ conclusions less certain.

This misses the point—these cloud chamber experiments are still observations in the present and are repeatable. A dinosaur turning into a bird 150 Ma (million years ago) is neither observable in real time, directly or indirectly, nor repeatable.